Player ratings for the Ashes

ENGLAND
8.5 ANDREW STRAUSS (5 Tests, 474 runs at 52.66) Player of the series for important, consistent runs at the top of the order including a captain's hundred at Lord's. Restored team harmony after a tumultuous period.

4.5 ALASTAIR COOK (5 Tests, 222 runs at 24.66) One meaningful score at Lord's but regularly faltered outside off stump and lost confidence as the series progressed.

3.5 RAVI BOPARA (4 Tests, 105 runs at 15) Came into the series amid high expectations after three consecutive centuries against the West Indies. Technique and temperament exposed at the highest level.

6 KEVIN PIETERSEN (2 Tests, 153 runs at 38.25) Played when hurt and still showed glimpses of class before succumbing to Achilles problem after second Test.

6.5 IAN BELL (3 Tests, 140 runs at 28) Improved his record against Australia but looked uncomfortable against short-pitched bowling from Mitchell Johnson.

6 PAUL COLLINGWOOD (5 Tests, 250 runs at 27.77) More deserving of an MBE than in 2005 but faded after helping England save the first Test in Cardiff.

7.5 JONATHAN TROTT (1 Test, 160 runs at 80) Replaced Bopara for the decider and stamped himself as a future star with century on debut.

7 MATT PRIOR (5 Tests, 261 runs at 32.62) Polished with the gloves and important with the bat, scoring quickly but guilty of some soft dismissals.

7 ANDREW FLINTOFF (4 Tests, 200 runs at 33.33, 8 wickets at 52.12) Figures don't reflect the importance of his presence, playing when injured and bowling big overs. Contributed with the bat at Edgbaston and, in his swansong Test, ran Ponting out.

8 STUART BROAD (5 Tests, 234 runs at 29.25, 18 wickets at 30.22) Announced himself as Flintoff's heir apparent. Made important lower-order runs and, though he started slowly with the ball, was man of the match for his five-wicket haul at the Oval.

6.5 JAMES ANDERSON (5 Tests, 12 wickets at 45.16) Destructive when the ball was swinging. Unflinching tail-end batting was important.

7.5 GRAEME SWANN (5 Tests, 249 runs at 35.57, 14 wickets at 40.50) Took big wickets in both of England's victories including his superb off-break to remove Ponting at Edgbaston. Batted with spunk.

6 STEVE HARMISON (2 Tests, 5 wickets at 33.40) Most emphatic contribution was to soften up Hughes with bouncers to expose the youngster's technique before the series. He finished off Australia at the Oval.

2.5 MONTY PANESAR (1 Test, 1 wicket at 115) No impact with the ball in his only Test but was the unlikely hero in a last-wicket partnership with Anderson to draw the Cardiff Test.

AUSTRALIA
6 SHANE WATSON (3 Tests, 240 at 48) Reinvented himself as an opener and looked the part with three half-centuries in five innings. Still, did not cash in for a big score and bowled only a handful of overs.

7 SIMON KATICH (5 Tests, 341 at 42.62) Made lots of promising starts but only one hundred and struggled with Swann's off-spin. Sharp fielding in close.

7 RICKY PONTING (5 Tests, 385 at 48.12) Showed glimpses of trademark brilliance, such as a flawless 150 in Cardiff, but ultimately was unable to erase the nightmare of 2005 and may rue his decisions in the last hour of the drawn Cardiff Test.

5 MIKE HUSSEY (5 Tests, 276 at 34.50) Lost awareness of his off stump, and a half-century at Lord's was his only meaningful first-innings contribution. Probably saved his career with a century in a losing cause at the Oval.

8.5 MICHAEL CLARKE (5 Tests, 448 at 64) Australia's player of the series and leading runscorer. Stood up as a senior batsman and vice-captain.

7.5 MARCUS NORTH (5 Tests, 367 runs at 52.42) Shored up the No. 6 spot with two centuries, as well as 96 to help save the third Test at Edgbaston, but was dismissed cheaply in several middle-order collapses. Played a role with the ball.

6.5 BRAD HADDIN (4 Tests, 278 runs at 46.33) Untidy with the gloves but shone with the bat in the first two Tests. Fell to an impetuous shot as Australia tumbled to defeat at the Oval.

6 MITCHELL JOHNSON (5 Tests, 20 wickets at 32.55) Respectable series figures do not reflect his early form struggles, from which he recovered well. Did not fire with the bat, giving England's lower order of Broad and Swann the edge.

7 NATHAN HAURITZ (3 Tests, 10 wickets at 32.10) Performed above expectations but couldn't bowl his side to victory at Cardiff. Should have been picked for the deciding Test on a dry pitch.

8.5 BEN HILFENHAUS (5 Tests, 22 wickets at 27.45) Leading wicket-taker for the series and had a consistent impact with the new ball to move from the fringes of the attack to become Australia's most threatening bowler.

6 STUART CLARK (2 Tests, 4 wickets at 44) Unlucky to miss first three Tests and had an immediate impact in favourable conditions at Headingley. Ineffective on an unhelpful pitch at the Oval.

4 PHILLIP HUGHES (2 Tests, 57 runs at 19) Did not adapt to England's relentless targeting of his body and was dropped after two Tests.

5 GRAHAM MANOU (1 Test, 21 at 21) Showed great composure with the gloves as 11th-hour replacement for Haddin at Edgbaston.

Posted
by EdAugust 25, 2009 6:51 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

Maybe we should put more effort into winning the toss. Punter has very bad odds. Made up for losing the toss with a brave display. Has Brett Lee fallen from favour . I'm sure the poms would be glad he didn't bowl a ball

Posted by: keith on August 25, 2009 7:27 AM

Unfortunately, they just wern't hungry enough.
Yes I understand people just like to criticise, but in this occassion the defeat is good for cricket overall look at the crowds and the passion in England.
Well done to the poms, in comparison to the Wallabies, seven years without a Bladesloe cup.

Regards
Dale

Posted by: Dale Sellers on August 25, 2009 8:20 AM

Given the individual performances from the Australians generally out classed the English it seems obvious the leadership of the team is not up to scratch. The selectors on the whole made the right decissions - the stats show that. The on field decisions and the team leadership did not create the focussed, creative and ruthless unit that should have retained the ashes.
P.S. Peter Roebuck - you are wrong.

Posted by: bruce on August 25, 2009 8:45 AM

Chloe i think youve got it pretty much spot on.. Except for Stuart Broad.. I dont think his impact was as great with the ball except the final test at the Oval, in fact, if England were to select a second spinner, it is Broad and not Anderson who would've got the chop.

7 for Hauritz is a tad kind also. Albeit he was the only spinner in the squad, he is far more suited to (attempting) tieing down an end in a one-dayer, with his marginal spin and dart-like execution.

I agree that Clarke was our best batsman, even though his blowout at the Oval put the final nail in our Ashes coffin.

With Hilfenhaus' success, surely the selectors will opt for bowlers who can swing and cut the ball next time we head for old blighty. Siddle performed admirably for a straight up and down bowler who hits the deck hard and Clark wasnt given enough opportunity. Johnson on the other hand was given ample opportunity and clearly showed that he has much to learn in the art of bowling.

Posted by: phatmaniac on August 25, 2009 8:48 AM

As usual Cricket Australia and Ricky Ponting have their heads in the sand, and still display their unflinching arrogance. Ponting needs to step down and concentrate on his batting - perhaps he can then help Australia to win. CA need to examine the whole selection process and the selectors - neither the process nor the selectors are good enough.

Posted by: Hucko on August 25, 2009 9:28 AM

I'm sorry but it is about time the Ponting retired gracefully - by the end of this summer would be fine!!
He is the only captain to LOSE not one but TWO Ashes and shouldn't have!!
The bowlers - well the selections and Ponting got it very wrong. Brett Lee should have replaced Johnson (I sorry but Johnson is not the best bowler in Australia and it's about time the selections recognised this!!). Hauritz should've been there in place of Hilfenhaus. Selectors and Ponting get off your high horses and look at the game!!!

Posted by: Helene Dawson on August 25, 2009 9:37 AM

We can't blame the players for their selection or non-selection,that responsibility lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Andrew Hilditch and his fellow selectors.They got it badly wrong from the initial squad selection right through to the final Aussie wicket at the Oval."We mis-judged the wicket" is not good enough when every other commentator ,ex-player,county cricket player , journo ,etc., had said this is a spinners pitch and has been for years.

Posted by: keith on August 25, 2009 10:05 AM

Australia average rating - 6.5
England average rating - 6.2

Obviously you must be judging on something other than getting results as last time I checked England won the ashes.

And don’t bother with the "Australia's players produced the better performances" garbage, if they had, it would be Australia celebrating victory wouldn’t it?

Posted by: ricky on August 25, 2009 10:08 AM

Chloe,

I disagree with most of your batting ratings. Ponting, Clarke , North and Hussey failed in more than half of their innings. It is nice to score a couple of hundreds and it does wonders for averages, but 4 failures (less than 20) in seven innings does not rate an 8.5 for Clarke and Ponting, North and Hussey were just as inconsistent.

Watson did not score a 100, but he did not score less than 30, and he was in an unfamiliar position in the hardest country in the world to open the bowling, where there is a lot of movement. He did not fail in one innings.

If every batsman (top 7 in batting list as Haddin is NOT a keeper!)scored between 30 and 80 in every innings, we would not have lost a test and would have scored over 350 in every innings. Instead, our top ranking batsmen were very inconsistent and failed in more than 50% of their innings. That is why we lost.

Batsmen first have to be consistent so that we do not have the abysmally low scores. Then getting a few hundreds helps. 4 of our top 5 are too inconsistent, they score either 60. That leads to disaster.

RE Mitchell Johnson, yes, he had 3 bad innings, but still ended up with a far better England record than Brett Lee has, and ended up with 4.4 wickets per match where 5 is often regarded as a very good average. He should have been played in the opening tour games to get into rhythm. He has always needed a lot of bowling. But, no, let Lee and Clark try to prove themselves instead and waste any chance the other bowlers, none of whom had bowled in England before, to get used to the balls and the conditions.

Posted by: Gil on August 25, 2009 10:12 AM

Get over it Aussies, you lost fair & square, stop blaming the greenkeeper and be good sports, you lost, there were good and bad players, but sick and tired of Roebuck & other journalists carrying on. The 1st day of 5th test, we read that England were lazy and deserved to lose, today, "the journalists" have changed their tune and Aust "deserved" to lose. Can't get a trick can you

Posted by: louigi on August 25, 2009 10:14 AM

Australia bowled far to inconsistent line and length in the series. Johnston with his problems put too much pressure on the others. Ponting got it tactically wrong in Cardiff. Stuart Clarke should have bowled at Lords with his experience of the slope. The others struggled. Selectors got it right at Egbaston but threw it away at Lords.

I agree with Ponting that England came up trumps with the crucial plays.

Australia need to sort out their spinning problems,it's creating an unbalanced team and affecting team harmony.It is clear that the selectors have no faith in Hauriz as a match winner.

Swann(7.5 is a bit generous) came into the Oval match with a bowling average of 68 so it makes you wonder what Hauriz could have done given the chance.

Congrats to England, it's a good result for them and a better one for Test cricket. Pity they will only have 2 years to gloat over their victory.

Posted by: Graham on August 25, 2009 10:19 AM

Full marks to both teams for a memorable series played in great spirit. Australia lost the series because it was unable to capitalise on their winning opportunites (ie crdiff) whereas England took full advantage when the Aussies slipped up. i am yet to be convinced that Shane Watson is a test class opener. He was consistent in getting a start but he does not have the ability to go on a get big scores. 30's and 40's are not good enough at this level Selectors should have persisted with Hughes as he can get big scores when he gets going. Suggestions that Clark should replace ponting as skipper are well of the mark. Notwithstanding that Clark had a great series, whenit really counted in the last test he failed miserably. Ponting did not and has never let anyone down when the going gets tough. There has been a lot said on the ommission of Hauritz from the last test. Sure if he had played it would have had a more positive effect, but this guy is no Shane Warne. Our batting was why we lost the test, thus unless hauritz was going to make 100 with the bat we still would have lost. Finally congrats to Freddy Flintoff - what a legend. Plays the game the way it should be played with spirit, passion and integrity.

Posted by: batman on August 25, 2009 10:28 AM

The simple fact is, our best 11 players aren't as good as England's best 11.

Sacking people won't suddenly make Australia world beaters.

Posted by: David on August 25, 2009 10:31 AM

If the selectors had any honour they'd resign en mass forthwith! In this blokes humble opinion they wouldn't have a "cricketing brain" between them!

Punter deserves to continue although I think we lost the first Test, and therefore the series, due to poor Captaincy. Late in the game Hilfenhause made the break and was immediately replaced. Yet Johnson was continued with even though he was seen to be having problems and spraying the ball all over the place. Then of course going into the last Test just needing a draw and leaving out a fit Brett Lee and our Specialist Spinner, on a Spinners Wicket!!!!

Posted by: Dundee on August 25, 2009 10:43 AM

The stats are actually pretty even, but that just proves statistics don't win you games. The innings defeat we issued in the 4th test was great for our stats, but the reality is we were beaten at too many of the moments of truth across the series.

Hussey was rubbish - 3, maybe 4 tops. One decent innings in what was a lost cause shouldn't gloss over what was a rubbish tour. Panesar's 10 at Cardiff was a far more meaningful innings

Watson should be rated higher (7.5, maybe 8). He did an excellent job of opening, and if he keeps averaging over 45 there, who cares if he bowls.

I think you've overated each of the bowlers (especially Johnson and Siddle). The English consistantly got more swing and more movement than us

Posted by: GregP on August 25, 2009 10:44 AM

Personally I think Australia should consult a dietitian. Their collapses after lunch in the first innings of the two London Tests lost them the series - keep off the pork pies, boys.

It is a bit odd that the average Australian ratings are higher - they probably should be 'seasonally adjusted' for time of performance. It is wrong that Cook gets 4.5 against Katich's 7. While he gave lots of good slip catching practice, Cook played what turned out to be a match winning innings at Lords - Katich never did that. And I thought Onions should have scored at least as high as Hauritz - their figures are almost identical.

Although I can see Queanbeyan out of my window so should duck to avoid snipers, it is a good thing that Haddin has gone home. Let's hope in the one dayers over the next couple of weeks that a good wicket keeper shows up. By the way, in your comments Manou must be the first player in history to be credited with a golden duck for a score of 8.

I think Ricky Ponting should step down as captain because he wings it as a leader. Consistently he sticks to some plan in his head and is not flexible enough to be creative and change spontaneously as required. Marcus North has already shown leadership skills as captain of the Western Australian team and showed flexibility as a bowler at the Oval when it was necessary.
Lynda

Posted by: Lynda on August 25, 2009 10:49 AM

What I don't understand is the complaining about the tosses. It happens.

Go back to the 2 3-game series between Australia and South Africa. Australia won 6 out of 6 tosses! If Australia didn't win all 3 tosses in South Africa maybe the result would have gone the other way...

Focus on who played well and who didn't.

& agree with Gil's comment, consistent runs is worth more than one off hundreds.

I love Hussey but he needs to go back and build his confidence before coming back into the team. Having him score well in the upcoming 2 series against lowly-ranked sides is not the way. He needs the hunger.

Posted by: Big Jim on August 25, 2009 10:58 AM

Who cares about rankings. Yes they're probably reasonable but they are irrelevant.

England won because the sessions they won thye won in devastating fashion which is something Australia only did once.

Australia played terribly against a very weak England side with their best player playing on one leg and their second best player not even playing.

England can build a batting lineup around Strauss, Peterson and Trott and be a decent enough side with depth of batting in their tail which is something they haven't had for a while.

Their bowling is weak though with Broad, Anderson and Swann way overrated.

Interesting to see how they go in South Africa. I can't see the number 1 side in the world holding many fears with this England side coming over.

Posted by: < on August 25, 2009 10:58 AM

Despite some poor judgement calls be selectors/captian and a few ordinary individual performances, Australia still only lost the Ashes by one wicket...the one the couldn't get in Cardiff.

Glass half full people!

Posted by: Pouch Hunter on August 25, 2009 11:00 AM

ephatic victory by England, both teams had to bat on the same pitch! but one captain shone, the other made bad decisions.

The last wicket at Cardiff, and not picking a spinner at The Oval (where the top 20 wicket takers are listed as spinners) were suicidal mistakes and Ponting should stand down as captain, and selection IS something that the captain has a say in, it would be very naive to suggest otherwise!

I dont think he has the resolve to play in the team unless he is captain, so should ultimately retire (before being pushed "hayden style")

Hussy's "Career Saving" century was badly timed, and threw his wickets away throughout the series, and should stand down also.

Posted by: Adam on August 25, 2009 11:24 AM

Ponting can't be blamed but you can blame the team. Too many If's and not enough immediate solutions. Players shouldn't of been dropped and players should of been chosen but we live with it and move on to 2010/11 when we can win the ashes back in oz.
We topped all the stats in the 5 test match series but the times Australia let themselves down were at crucial times and thats when England took maximum points and won the crucial moments!
We have to move on and salvage some pride by winning the one day series!

Posted by: joseph on August 25, 2009 11:26 AM

Get rid of Ponting. Dud skipper. Probably worse ever. Sorry, I mean worse ever. & everyone knew that from the start. Clarke's no better. We don't need a celebrity as captain. Katich could do it for a couple of seasons.

Posted by: Jack on August 25, 2009 11:33 AM

You cant drop Ponting as Captain if you did you would loose your best player , Australia is not like other countries he would retire like every other Australian Captain - remember Kim Hughes. Also the VC would have had an input in the decisions. Clarke is not 2nd as captain just because he is VC he is VC for the future. Hussey and Katich would be ahead of them and have great captaining records .

Katich is the only player in the side that toughed it out when the rest collapsed, sure swing/England is a slight weakness ( greatly improved from 2005) but coming into this series he was the best batsman , spin bowler and set the record for most runs in last years shield...You want to drop him for Jacques..Ke.

Brett Lee deserves to be first choice in the side though i think a horses for courses/rotation policy is best. Despite the Oval we have been the most effective with 4 pacemen ( all our last 3 wins and only 1 loss the Oval).

If Watson is going well play a spinner. Rotate bowlers for conditions. Note with Lee and Johnson the tail is quite long down ti 10 if we play a spinner.

Posted by: Ben on August 25, 2009 11:36 AM

Chloe,
I too reckon you have done OK with these marks.
Bell was lucky, remember he was out 3 times at Headingley{?} before being given OUT. Agree with a scratchy 65%.
I think Onions deserves more.65%-68%. Which celeb likes him? - ask her.
Freddie 73%, on one leg. What a champion.
Hussey - must earn a FAIL so 45%.
Johnson failed when it mattered so just a pass 52 - 55%.
I enjoyed this assignment - makes you think.

Posted by: Geoff on August 25, 2009 11:44 AM

as it was in '05, this was another battle of mediocrity with 'them' slightly less mediocre than 'us'. but, because they made it work when it most mattered, deserved the series win. this squad, like your aust rankings, is more hype than substance. we talk a good game but, when it comes time to grab the opportunity, we didn't deliver - perhaps some of that nasal delivery technology? we have too many players not up to the challenge of an ashes series and too many slection 'experiements' that have blown up in our hands. ponting led as poorly as the team played - he can only do so much. that pressure and frustration permeated almost everything he touched. however, his captaincy was not as disappointing and concerning as the standard of so-called international umpiring. for the ashes, can we please have the best umpire from australia and the best umpire from england at either end and accept what comes our way? rudi, billy & co. were so busy working on their dismissal and leg bye signalling technique, they forgot what they had been benn flown half-way round the the world to do. imagine the implications if the indians - sachin tendulkar, in particular - had been on the receiving end of those errant, slowly raised or crooked fingers of fate? michael clarke, unfortunately, is a long way from being ready to lead this ordinary group - don't forget what happened to kim hughes. besides, where would he find room for a tattoo big enough to celebrate his test captaincy? brad haddin must be the worst test wicketkeep in living memory and will need to average 99.94 to justify selection. give us a real 'keeper who can catch, leading the fielding effort and doesn't become a spectator when the ball turns more than 2cm. perhaps we can find a finger doctor who will keep him at home and out of circulation long enough for our all-seeing, all-knowing selectors to realise how important catching is when you get the gloves. apparently, we are in a 're-building phase' which, apparently, means that you take a 30-something-year-old fast bowlers on an ashes tour when he has had major surgery, not bowled for 6 months and is at the end of his career ... wonder what we are rebuilding? perhaps we are rebuilding for an over-30s world series to go with the 50-over, 20/20 circus acts? just doesn't feel like aussie cricket these days - sharpee

Posted by: sharpee on August 25, 2009 12:04 PM

The previous generation of Aussie cricketers were too ruthless. I never enjoyed their attitude and style of winnig. Since they have departed the odds are more even and the game is more enjoyable. I have enjoyed the game ever since and long may the gentlemanliness contimue.

Posted by: iconoclast on August 25, 2009 12:15 PM

let ponting finish out this summer as captain then give it to clarke. keep ponting, if he wants to play on, as a batsman.

always have a full time spinner in the starting XI.

give hussey the chance to retire and if he doesnt drop him and replace him with hughes. give hughes a few tests down the order do get some batting time in the middle and then move him to opener when he's playing well.

keep watson as a opener but dont bowl him. let him concentrate on batting and forget the ball.

new selectors. how about the waugh brothers? gilly or warne? brendon julian? darren lehman?

maybe this series loss was a good thing that will allow CA to start afresh and plan for the future

Posted by: charlie on August 25, 2009 12:25 PM

I disagree with all the talk about losing a few key sessions being the reason we lost this series. There were two main reasons – neither having much to do with how we actually played. Individually, almost everyone in the team performed close to or above expectations (we certainly ranked better than England in that regard).
The first area we missed out in was simple luck: four out of five tosses lost (Lord’s important, Oval crucial), the majority of bad umpiring decisions went England’s way, and (no one seems to remember this) the last session of the fourth day at Cardiff was washed out when we had England on the ropes.
The other main area was selection policy. This was the worst-balanced team for an Ashes tour that I can remember. Five fast bowlers, one specialist spinner (who is not even a genuine test-class bowler), two all-rounders and no reserve specialist batsman! We were sunk before we started. To that was added the calamitous decision not to play Stuart Clark (still, day-in, day-out our best quick) until the fourth test. Had Clark played we would almost certainly have been able to finish them off at Cardiff. The decision not to play Hauritz at the Oval simply beggars belief. Well though Watson did, there should have been a specialist batsman on hand to replace Hughes (not that I would have dropped the best prospect since the young Rick Ponting, anyway).
I would have picked Jason Krejza (a potential match winner) instead of the past-his-best Brett Lee, and another batsman (Hodge?) instead of Andrew McDonald (who will never be a quality test player). How Krejza must have been licking his lips looking at that Oval dustbowl – it probably reminded him of that wicket in India where he took twelve wickets against the best players of spin in the world…
The selectors simply must abandon the “revolving door” approach and identify the guys who are going to take Australian cricket forward. I suggest that Hughes (Philip, not Merv!) and Krejza are two of them.

Posted by: Greg T on August 25, 2009 12:28 PM

Player rating is meaningless. Australia lost, in humiliating circumstnaces, the Lord's Test, the Ashes, ACHIEVED being the second team in Australian/England clashes, the sickening honour of being complicit in an dishonourable defeat, in England - TWICE - yes - TWICE. Being now fourth, behind, South Africa and England, is the fact to face. Excuses in assessing past form are a mocking exhibition of intemperate and immature sportsmen. They deserve the Governor Darling Salute, as their cowardly legacy

Posted by: Robert on August 25, 2009 12:32 PM

clarke has no brains as a cricketer and is constantly out before the end of a session playing at wide deliveries away from his body. scoring a stack of runs in defending losses or when australia had 200 runs on the board when he came in doesn't make for a "man of the series" rating.

Posted by: andrew on August 25, 2009 12:36 PM

This series just goes to prove the old saying, "You can't win a test match in a session, but you can certainly lose one." Australia lost the ashes on the back of 4 or 5 sessions out of all of the tests.

Posted by: Dave on August 25, 2009 12:50 PM

This is cricket. In the middle if you make a mistake or you don't perform the dreaded finger goes up. You walk!
Why should it be any different for the selectors? I'm sorry Mr Hilditch & Co you don't stand your ground and offer excuses. There is no argument with a 2-1 loss. Precedent demands it and history expects it - you walk!

Posted by: Alf on August 25, 2009 1:04 PM

Ok so what kind of leadership does Australia have when both our captain and vice captain get run out in the innings that counted most. Great example boys. We did not need to get those runs so badly. What we needed was to occupy the crease since we had another full days play! Ponting and Clarke batting on for 2 days and we win easy.

Posted by: jas on August 25, 2009 1:12 PM

Lynda!!

Thats a terrible selection! Im glad you arent on the panel of selectors.

Clarke opening?
Hussey still there?
North as captain!

here is what i think the team for the Australian summer would look like:

Jacques and Hughes are young enough that they could form one of the longstanding opening partnerships Australia is famous for.

Ponting needs to stay but with the proviso that he begins a leadership succession plan to Clarke.

Im not convinved with North, but he will be given the opportunity and although im unhappy about Watson overall, his performance in England will see him get an opportunity, but not as opener.

Johnson and Siddle thrive in Australian conditions with harder decks and the Kookaburra ball. Hilfenhaus has taken enough wickets to stay, but can be expensive in Australia if the conditions are very dry.

The Spinner.
Hauritz is a no go. Get him out. Whilst he should've been selected for the fifth test in England, he is not a Test quality spinner. The mantle must be handed to Casson. He has a better average and strike-rate than Hauritz in First Class cricket and is an actual danger to batsmen.

We have all gotten used to the idea that we can have a spinner who is dangerous and inexpensive (Warne), but he is the exception, not the rule. We must be prepared to allow our spinner to buy his wickets on occasion, especially in Australia.

Posted by: phatmaniac on August 25, 2009 1:21 PM

Wow! Look at the ratings you have given to Australian players. Looks like they were the better team.

Excellent! You should get a job as an Australian Selector. I'm sure they used the same logic to put this team together before the Ashes!

None of the Australian players should get more than 5.

How does Hussey score 5????? He scored a century when he clearly knew it was all over.

Posted by: sfx on August 25, 2009 1:26 PM

England deserved to win - and I say that as an Aussie supporter. Australia had nobody to build their game around. The top 3 batsmen were inconsistent (Watson aside) and the form of the bowlers was unpredictable (excepting Hilfenhaus, who is very good, but no star).

England, on the other hand, were glued together by Strauss at the top and a very solid lower middle order - Prior, Broad and even Swann. Their batting was decisive more than once. This allowed others to chip in - Flintoff, for example, who is an aggressive, but very inconsistent batsman, and who bowled only a couple of good spells throughout. In short, England always had somebody who could contribute.

Australia must find a good spinner - preferably a leggie. Here's an interim team, for what it's worth (remembering that opinions are worthless!)

Katich is a thinker, has captained NSW and is a fighter. Ponting is a great player but is not an astute strategist. Otherwise, Clarke may do the job well too - who knows? Of course, Ricky will stay on and will probably win the next three series, making all of us look silly. Still, it's fun to speculate.

Posted by: No Sledging on August 25, 2009 1:28 PM

Punt the Punter.

Posted by: Denis on August 25, 2009 1:29 PM

Whats with all the Ponting knockers??? Intead of simply blaming the captain, how about you take a moment to check his stats and you may find he is not the problem. One of the greatest batsmen Australia has produced yet idiots with no memory or knowledge of cricket just right him off?? I think we have to realise that the side we have right now is NOT the side of 5 years ago... And to say Ponting does not motivat his side is absolutley ridiculous. If you are playing for Australia and need more motivation you should not be there. Clarke is considered the next captain of Australia. In contrast to Steve Waugh (look at the side he had) and Mark Taylor (look at the side he had), oh and Allan Border (look at the side he had), its obvious the current playing squad is far less talented and experienced as previous ones. Clarkie does not yet have the mongrel required to be a captain yet. So how about people here take a step back and get some intelligence before taking pot shots at an all time great in Ricky Ponting.

Posted by: Bruce on August 25, 2009 1:32 PM

Come on Australia cop it on the chin, we weren't good enough to win. There were a multitude of reasons why we weren't successful but it is a bit rich to put all the blame on Ricky. We quickly forget all the good things he has done. Let's face it, we have come off an unprecedented run of success over the last 10 years. No one should expect us to maintain that standard indefinitely, even Lance Armstrong or Tiger won't keep winning forever.
Why can?t we be gracious losers occasionally or have we forgotten the meaning of sportsmanship, yeah I know it is the Poms but even they are entitled to the occasional win..

Posted by: Mark Salkeld on August 25, 2009 1:37 PM

How good are the Ashes! The figures show that Australia scored more runs and got more wickets over the series and yet it means nothing unless you get them at integral moments within each match. That's why you've got to love test cricket. Congrats to the Poms and Andrew Strauss (couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke).

A few things that are on my mind:

- Phil Hughes. Put him back in the side straight away. We need a good, young batsman in the team and he will only get better. It's a risk, but it will pay dividends.

- Phil Jacques. I think he and Hughes are the future for us as far as openers go. Katich can play anywhere (1st drop? 2nd drop?).

- Now that Andrew Symonds had decided he doesn't want to play cricket anymore where is our next quality utility player going to come from?

- Shane Watson. I'm not sure he is made to be an opening batsmen in Test Cricket. One day cricket, yes, but not test cricket. He got better conditions than Hughes to bat in and didn't make a big score and he gets out too many times straight after a break. Put him in at number six or not in at all. Oh, one more thing...he is a big strong lad but his bat is too heavy for him. Maybe it just looks heavier than it is but he should lend Michael Clarkes bat for a bit...he won't score as quickly but he'll stop getting out LBW.

- Hauritz. He can get wickets when the pitch is spinning at right angles but he needs to learn how to bowl really, really tight on a pitch that isn't spinning. That way he can be useful as a partner for impact bowlers such as Mitchell Johnson (just as Glenn McGrath or Tim May were good as partners for Warnie). If the selectors want a spinner who will win games for them on the last day of a test match they should look elsewhere.

- The fast bowlers. They are young and inexperienced and they will get better!! What a great combination. Hilfenhaus with his swing, Siddle with his agro and Johnson with his pace. All bases covered. Give them a bit of time to gel and a bit of confidence that they can bowl a bad over or two and not lose their place in the side and they will win us matches. Throw Clarke or Lee into the mix (depending on conditions) for a bit of experience and we've got a really good pace attack. The future is good.

- Ponting as captain. This is a hard one because if the players see him as the captain then nothing will change that. He's had his chance and while I think he is a good captain he hasn't always got it right. I think it's time for a fresh perspective. Let him concentrate on his batting for the rest of his career and let someone else do all the hard work. The only question is...can he handle not being top dog and will the players be led by someone else?

The only problem having Clarke as captain is it might encroach on his batting...which we can't afford at the moment.

Posted by: SlapAndDash on August 25, 2009 1:40 PM

The day oz test cricket DIED was 03/06/05 Replacement during and ashes series of Allan Boarder.Then to make things worst.Greg Chapple was seen in the players rooms and on the balconies during test matches.Not much has been written particulary why A B resigned.But the timing smells.Oz cricket downhill since that day

Posted by: max w mclauglin on August 25, 2009 1:51 PM

Sutherland said selectors were in no way ''accountable for us losing the Ashes''

Rubbish - they need to be held accountable for the team they selected to tour and decisions mad during the tour - we took two opener, Hussey sadly out of form for 18 months, a couple of underdone bowlers with fitness concerns and one defensive spinner.

Also disagree with Warne that Hauritz selection would make a difference - no bowler is going to save you the match when you get rolled for 160 on a flat track.

Posted by: Machine on August 25, 2009 2:01 PM

Buchanan/Neilsen's statistical approach is great when you have an experienced team, which is not where we are today. What we need is a coach with a proven track record with nurturing and getting the best out of a young team. Tom Moody did a great job with Sri Lanka and can do an even better one with Australia.

Posted by: Pras on August 25, 2009 2:03 PM

No-one is mentioning the 3rd rate player and now 5th rate coach, Neilsen. What could this guy teach any of the Test players - ZERO! Look at his record since taking the reins. He MUST go!

Posted by: Harry Callahan on August 25, 2009 2:03 PM

The premis for the witch-hunt presently in-train is that our cricketers should 'win everything' against our old mates The Poms. That's clearly rubbish. We accept defeats on the sub-continent as if that is not our 'core business'. But we can't lose 2 Ashes Series - under one of our best ever Captains - against The Mother Country without the knitters getting the satisfaction of seeing a head roll into the basket. For a sport loving country like us we should accept defeats, learn, strengthen and move on. Well done Strauss and co, you were better on balance. Well done Jonnie Wilkinson and co in 2003. Well done the All Blacks. I for one can take it. And GO MANLY! to defend the NRL Premiereship.

Posted by: Geoff on August 25, 2009 3:03 PM

I think now everyone has to realise how good the aussies of old were. We have just come back to the pack and it shows you can have good days and bad days. we lost 2005 away and then won over here 5-0 the real test for the poms is if they can match us on our home soil.
i think the killer for the aussies was day 5 of first test, would have been different story if we one that but nothing can be done now except move on.

Posted by: Matt on August 25, 2009 3:22 PM

There is no leadership in the Australian camp. Pure and simple. Ponting cannot hide behind the legs of our retired players. It's up to him and he just cannot think on his feet. Not being able to get the tail enders out in the first test was a disgrace that cost the series.

Great batsman, bad captain.

Posted by: Dale on August 25, 2009 3:32 PM

Hilfenhaus gets high points purely because others were trash. You got to look at the impact one creates on the match and almost every match England got off to a good start and Siddle and Hilfenhaus were opening the bowling. Cook got himself out, most of the time and you can't count that as part of the bowlers' credit to be honest.
Unlike the Australian bowlers of the past, the current bowlers were waiting for batsmen to make mistakes rather than getting them out. The line and length (McGrath),genuine pace (Brett Lee), magic spin (Warne) were missing. Johnson I felt should have been rested after first test and allowed him to get his line and length right along with his confidence, instead of trying him out in every match. He got wickets, but at what cost? Except for Bell, every one else were relishing Johnson (Swan, Broad and even Harmison got most runs out of Johnson) He was the quickest and couldn't threaten the tail and that is where they missed Brett Lee.
Stuart Clarke is a decent bowler who believes in line and length and waits for mistakes from opposition, but when he tries to be aggressive, he misses his trick.
Overall, two batting collapses spoiled Australian party, but my assessment is that Bowling spoiled the party more than Batting as batting collapsed twice but bowling did almost 8 times.

Posted by: Mukundan on August 25, 2009 3:44 PM

Ponting is a fine batsman, but not a good captain. Too thick, and has never lost the yob in him. Having said that we are thin on the ground re captains. Boy Clarke has been trying to imitate a man with the stubble and tats, but doesn't cut it. Hussy's gone. The absence of the next leader is a problem, IMHO.

Posted by: Mike on August 25, 2009 3:46 PM

I think that Tim Neilsen's consistent failures as coach of a highly talented cricketing nation with a fair bit of depth (apart from spin) should be seriously looked at. We have produced the two winning coaches of the IPL (Warne and Lehmann) who have both proven themselves at the highest level as players. Some innovative thinking from guys who have tremendous respect from all cricket players and fans, would help Australian cricket much more than Tim Neilsen.

The whole selection panel needs a review too. Why do we have 4 part time selectors? A full time chairman with two part timers would be a better format.

That being said, Australia didn't play terrible cricket in the series. We lost the big moments badly which ultimately cost us. A fairer result was probably 2 all, but due to rain and an inability to put England away at Cardiff ultimately cost us.

Posted by: Duncan on August 25, 2009 4:00 PM

Remember people we are selecting a team who will not play in England. Players like Katich and Lee play far better outside England.

Ypu cant go past Watson and Katich for openers . They delivered even at the Oval.period!

Hughes is like Greg Blewit ( only worse) . Remember he got a double ton on debut got found out and could never make it back to international level. The shield matches will be very interesting is Jaques good still , will Hughes make it to state cricket ? Im sure the other state sides will have watched what Harmy did ( prob helped England big time there) .

Posted by: Ben on August 25, 2009 4:57 PM

Jacques and Hughes as openers , dont make me laugh. Maybe after a stint in state cricket but it looks like NSW doesn't even think Hughes is good enough. Potential yes but he isnt there yet. State cricket yes.

I recommend leave ponting as captain but appoint Kattich as tactician.

Posted by: bk on August 25, 2009 5:07 PM

Chloe I agree.

Player for player, the majority of Australian players were better. Look at the English top order - besides Strauss and belatedly Trott would you have confidence in Cook, Bell, Bopara and Collingwood. I would far rather have Katich, Clarke, Ponting and even North.

Hughes has to improve before he is picked again - but the other wobblies - Watson, Johnson and Hussey all contributed more than say Collingwood.

Australia lost three critical sessions in five tests - had Hauritz played at the Oval and the lead been 400 it could have been very interesting.

Posted by: Rob on August 25, 2009 5:16 PM

Congrat's to the Poms in winning the series. The fact is, if Ponting wins the toss for 5th test, Australia wins the series and the Ashes.

Unfortunately, Australia wasn't good enough against a poor England side. Only Strauss, Prior and Flintoff would make the current Australian side. This doesn't say much for the Aussies' state of mind.

As for Flintoff, he's a tremendous character and an entertainer no doubt, but overrated. He has taken 5 wickets in an innings only 3 times in his whole career. Unbelievable but true. Figures don't lie.

To summarize this series? It's not so much the amount of runs scored and wickets taken, but when those things happen. Australia missed the big moments.

Posted by: Max Young on August 25, 2009 5:26 PM

Oh, I forgot to mention the umpiring. It was astronomically diabolical. I can remember at least a dozen howlers against Australia which may have well swung the series England's way.

However, Australia has been the beneficiary of such decisions down here at times so I don't think anyone should complain.

Chloe, two questions: Why oh why can't the best umpires officiate in important test series, and why shouldn't Bowden, Koertzen et al be relegated to district cricket where they belong?

Posted by: Max Young on August 25, 2009 5:35 PM

If you allowed minus figures then I would give Mitchell Johnson - 27
He was carried for most tests and was suppose to be our spearhead. He failed to bowl out tailenders in the first test and gave England runs on a platter in the 2nd.
He should of been dropped. Nice he is now in a bit of form now it only cost us the Ashes cheers Mitch.
Rethink the "mate" policy and pick on performance and conditions. Simple.

Posted by: Jules on August 25, 2009 5:41 PM

People get over it. Bruce you clearly have no idea! To blame Ponting as captain is sheer folly and shows aclear lack of understanding of what occurred. Sure a range of critics have said he should have done this etc., but ask the players whothey want to lead them and I know the answer you would get. Ponting. Australia simply didnt win the big moments in thee series, losing wickets are key times ie 1st innings!No ones fault, that is cricket at whatever level you play. We have not the level of experience teams have had in the past. It didnt help lossing 4 tosses and not having the luck with some decisions.Get out and support them on their return. They are the best players we have and work their butts off. While people like Bruce sit in their chairs

ps Watch out for Phil Hughes to come back in a huge way provided he doesnt listen to experts like Terry who?

Posted by: the old man on August 25, 2009 5:52 PM

OK I know it hurts guys but consider this, for the last 10 years you have been blessed with maybe the top 7-9 cricketers in the world - selection then was hardley difficult. Now, most of those have retired its a case of starting from new. If the selectors have made mistakes - its over the last 5 or more years, the succession policy just hasnt worked
- maybe there wasnt one ?
So its time to rebuild
Best Regards
Tony

Posted by: tony on August 25, 2009 5:56 PM

For 15 years or so the Aussies taught the world the arts of fitness, fielding and working together but they are now a pale imitation of the Warne and Gilchrist inspired sides.Apart from the first innings collapse this was a tight scoring game and therefore you can't concede 70 sundries to the Poms 27 and not have it affect the result.

Posted by: Nipper on August 25, 2009 6:02 PM

It's a shame it's all over. i would love to see them go again for another five tests in England. Ponting batted almost brilliantly the whole series. He is one of the greatest batsman ever- people seem to forget that. the oval pitch was a huge disaster. the fact is the Aussies can't play swing. i'm sure the English can't either but where were the Aussies bowlers to swing or move the ball.
How many lives does huss have - he should have been dropped for Watson and Phil hughes maintained as the opener.Stu clarke should have played all the tests . mitch johnson is not our best bowler but he seems to have nine lives too. we need to stick with a spinner- not the one we've got now. Really there wasn't much between the two teams - one batting collapse was the difference. Full credit to England

Posted by: beaugritz on August 25, 2009 6:02 PM

Greetings from England.

I think you are very kind to Mitchell Johnson. This was the guy who was going to blow us away. He didn't - worse, he failed in two crucial sessions (the last one at Cardiff and the first one at Lord's) that arguably turned the series. He seems destined to follow Doug Walters, Dean Jones and Matthew Hayden as good players whom greatness eluded because they couldn't hack it in England. I am convinced that had Australia persevered with Hughes, his rating and your results would have been better. Watson did ok but he's no test opener and Flintoff showed everyone at Edgbaston what we all think of Watson's bowling - if Johnson and Watson are your future all-rounders then Australia are going to flounder for a while yet. Clarke is beautiful to watch but England showed at The Oval that they'd worked him out; North scored a lot when the pressure was off but buckled when the pressure was on. Your best player was Hilfenhaus; that, in itself, should worry you. Finally, great batsman though he is, Ponting is not and never has been a Test captain. Once all the greats left, he entered the real world and found it was a cold unwelcoming place.

Posted by: David on August 25, 2009 6:06 PM

Other teams are reserving their best performance against Australia and with a vengeance. So Australia should not expect a cakewalk every time they go in for a series.

Posted by: jayant on August 25, 2009 6:10 PM

about time to get rid of the cafe latte set and their wags ,select players who are eager and dedicated not like micheal bingle and upset mummies boys get some blokes with backbones and heart

Posted by: john on August 25, 2009 6:26 PM

ACB and selectors need an overhaul. Need people who know how to lead properly and can win. Shane Warne as chairman of selectors. Ex-players like Mark Waugh, Stuart Macgill, Mark Taylor, Glen McGrath etc. Not Hughes, Hilditch and Boon who were mediocre at best.

Posted by: Dave crane on August 25, 2009 7:26 PM

Not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Hilfenhaus was the bowler of the series. Remember, the consensus here is that stats don't tell the whole story.

Speaking of bowlers, as an Englishman, McGrath and Warne were terrifying because they were amazing accurate bowlers. Someone should tell Johnson that. Following an easily left or defendable ball with a contrived little snarl and a stare does not induce fear in a batsman. It just turned him into a bit of an amusement figure.

Get the basics right and the rest will follow.

Posted by: Stirling on August 25, 2009 8:18 PM

I thought Bunting didnt play the IPL cos he wanted to rest n practise for the ashes.
he lost twice.
must make a lot of money on the horses. any tips Punter?

Posted by: runout on August 25, 2009 8:59 PM

Can we please just nail one thing down? The idea that all the poor umpiring decisions favoured England. It only seems that way because the Australian media seem reluctant to point out the ones that go the other way. Like Strauss given out to a huge No Ball that wasn't called at the Oval, a big moment in any game the way he was playing throughout the series, or Shane Watson surviving the plumbest LBW you'll ever see right at the start of his innings, which would have exposed Ponting to a second over new ball. As for the toss, well, Ponting called it.

Calling England a mediocre side as Peter Roebuck seems fond of doing is a bit rich too; Australia are now firmly in the middle of the test rankings just like England. I sat through every ball of this series live, some at the ground, some on TV, and it was clear to any objective observer that there wasn't much between the teams. England happened to come out on top at the end of the series because they won the key moments. Had Australia done the same it could have been a different story. As it was, England can take some heart from the fact that they achieved the result they did whilst missing their best batsman, Peitersen and playing a pain-racked Flintoff, bless him, whose injury limited his contributions overall.

After years of Australian dominance through the good fortune of having a once-in-a-lifetime collection of star players at their disposal, the reality is that Australia, whilst still a good side, can expect to lose series as well as automatically win them. That will take some getting used to for those reared on constant wins, but it is a return to the normality of previous years, and is good for international test cricket.

Posted by: Malcolm on August 25, 2009 10:21 PM

See, what always amazes me after a loss like this about Australians, is all the SMH journo's who have never done anything themselves apart from sit in front of a computer and bag the likes of this team and Ricky Ponting. Sure they lost the series to he 5th ranked team in the world, but have a look at the statistics. Give credit where it's due. ( But never let your own personal lack of experience ( especially on the field! ) get in the road of a story eh? How very Australian it is... and today I read Fairfax with a major loss. Report that ladies/boys from your computers. I wonder why ( actually I know why...too many journos not reporting on the game. Less reporting on the gossip ladies, more on the game, the strategy, the tactics and utilise your experience. As a reader, we value it if you have it. The sadness of this for Australians.... the alternative is News very Limited..... I bet I write this in vein, you wouldn't publish this....

Posted by: Robdub on August 25, 2009 10:44 PM

Lynda are you Marcus North's mum? Having him as captain is laughable, he is a journeyman who makes hay on flat pitches.

Posted by: Rossco on August 26, 2009 12:44 AM

What these stats about batting averages and bowling averages show, amazingly, is that Australia were overall a lot better than England in both departments. Just look at the batting averages of their top 7 players and compare them to the Poms' averages. And with the bowling, compare them also - the Aussies are notably better there too (if not by as wide a margin as with the batters' averages).

It just shows that the series was lost - as Ponting has identified - because of a couple of out-of-character collapses, when suddenly, all at once everyone played badly at once. Those performances didn't bring down the Aussies' high averages - because the rest of the time they were doing very well, a lot better than England - but they did lose the Aussies the games they happened in.

You could say Ponting (and co) were unlucky, with that being the case; and with having lost the toss four times out of five (a very big advantage to have it at the Oval...). A little bit more grit, to stop the Aussies suffering collective moments like they did, and their averages prove they ought to be doing a lot better. No wonder people are scratching their heads as to how the Aussies lost the series when overall, they seemed to have more going for them in the batting and bowling departments. You look back at the English performances through the series and struggle to find the real highlights you'd expect of an Ashes-winning team...there aren't many. Even Flintoff's bowling stint at Lord's was - let us not forget - against the Aussies' lower order and tail-enders (it has been hyped to the heavens). Our struggle to find many real highlights from the English side, real sensational performances (not just the occasional hundred by someone or a 5-for) reflects the way, in general, the Aussies were actually better in this series. They just lost their nerve at a couple of moments, and, unluckily for them, it cost them dear when it came to the overall result.

Posted by: jonnyboy 1 on August 26, 2009 3:46 AM

It wasn't poor captaincy that cost Australia the series - when they had the best batting and bowling averages by far over the Brits - it was just, unluckily, when the guys didn't do well, they all did it at once, making for a couple of very poor sections to matches which then cost them. England's guys weren't performing as well, in broad terms, but they didn't all perform poorly at once.

I doubt Ponting could be blamed for that; it is just inexperience that did it (and bad luck). People forget that cricket involves the element of luck that all sports do - on balance I think the Aussies pretty much lost this series due to the luck element, consisting of 3 things: losing the toss 4 times out of 5 (crucial to your chances, especially at the Oval...); umpiring decisions (the Aussies had the worst of it); and players, if they were going to play badly, all doing it at once!

Posted by: zing on August 26, 2009 3:55 AM

as an English man here in England i think ponting can hold his head up high. you have lost some great players in the last few years and put young men in place, give them a chance & in a few years some will fall some will become great. England are progressing well, roll on to when we come over to you for it will be close again and it will depend on how many players have managed to cement there names into the team, we have 9/10 players, 2 great, aussies 6/7 players 1 great

Posted by: Gerrard on August 27, 2009 1:12 AM

Wow, this newspaper really has it in for Ponting, doesn't it? Are the editors who allow the headline "Our Glorious Loser" and "Don't send me into the wilderness, pleads Ponting" (not a direct quote) happy that the Herald has finally sunken to the lows enjoyed by The Daily Telegraph? Still bitter about the lack of NSW players in the test side? Considering Ponting is a Sydney resident, i would think it would be tremendously hurtful for him to see this website - you wouldn't do it to any other individual unless they were a criminal. Get a grip and do some real journalism. It's just a bloody game.

Posted by: Nick on August 27, 2009 10:52 AM

I remember after the last Ashes series saying to Malcolm (Aug 25, 10.21) 'stop complaining about bad luck, the better side won'. Well I agree with him now - same thing, on balance I reckon the better team won. But Malcolm you can't complain about Strauss's bad luck in the last Test without also mentioning that Hilfy should have had a wicket with the first ball of the Headingley Test - a very rare feat. These things really do work out.

And can somebody tell me why we didn't have the referral system in for this series? The ICC decides it's a good idea but decides not to start it until some time in the future. They really are ****wits.

Posted by: DM on August 27, 2009 4:07 PM

Barmy Army is celebrating through sydney streets tomorrow.............check us out at woolloomooloo from midday . . .

Posted by: JJ on August 28, 2009 11:21 PM

I didn't think that the series would be easily won by the Aussies and as the bowlers are real newbies with none of them having English experience, they did pretty well apart from the debacle of Lord's.

It is a tough call to blame Johnson for the loss, he was not up to the pressure, but he is, 90% of the time, an inconsistent bowler. The expectations built around him after SA were very unrealistic.

I don't regard Punter as the big bad wolf in all this either. He was having to bat enough for 3 and 4, as the lunacy of carrying Hussey continued. If he has really saved his career with a worthless hundred, I give up.

The batting collapses were very worrying, as they are par for the course with this team. They collapse a lot. Look at any of the past 18 months series. Collapse after collapse. The confidence as a unit appears to be shot for now.

Even against NZ last year, the team collapsed, it is just that the Kiwis did so even more comprehensively.

Posted by: Winsome on August 29, 2009 10:41 PM

Well done you Aussies for beating us poms in the one day game, I think we are the worst team, it changes every time we choose a squad. Now the ECCB have got rid of the 50 over game over here, there is no hope for us, but at least we have a test team